- (1.)By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought to challenge the report submitted by the respondent No.3 for taking an action against the petitioner for recovery of the amount, said to be spent unauthorizedly for the purpose of taking certain facilities. The petitioner was appointed as Chairman of the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Beej Avam Farm Vikas Nigam (herein after referred to as 'Corporation') vide notification dated 18.05.2004. According to the petitioner, he has been given the status of a Cabinet Minister by an order of the State Government issued on 5th August, 2004. According to the petitioner, he is entitled to get all the facilities which are provided to a Cabinet Minister. He was further appointed for a year as Chairman of the aforesaid Corporation vide notification dated 10th May, 2007. The said period was extended by order dated 21st May, 2008 for a further period of two years. Certain actions were taken by the petitioner because of his strong administration against some of the erring officers. Out of prejudices and bias because of such strict action taken by the petitioner, a frivolous complaint was made before the Lokayukt alleging that the petitioner has taken certain facilities at the cost of the Corporation expenses without any authority and thereby has caused financial loss to the Corporation. Many other allegations were also made with respect to financial irregularities. Upon making of such a complaint, a case was registered by the Lokayukt, comments and replies were called from the Corporation, which were submitted. It was categorically contended by the Corporation that such facilities were extended to the petitioner at the cost of Corporation in view of the resolutions passed by the Corporation, in the past. It was said that no irregularity was committed by the petitioner. However, a show cause was issued to the petitioner of which the reply was submitted by him categorically denying all such allegations supported by documentary evidence but instead of considering such a reply of the petitioner in appropriate manner, the Lokayukt has given a report under Section 12 of the Madhya Pradesh Lokayukt Evam Up- Lokayukt Adhiniyam, 1981 (herein after referred to as 'Act'), to the State Government with a recommendation that amount spent by the petitioner for obtaining such facilities be recovered from him and information be given to the Lokayukt under the provisions of Section 12(2) of the Act aforesaid, therefore, the present writ petition is required to be filed.
(2.)It is contended that in view of such acts of Lokayukt since the petitioner is made to suffer financial loss, he is required to approach this Court by way of filing this writ petition. It is contended by the petitioner that he has not committed any alleged misconduct or offence nor any financial loss is caused to the Corporation by the petitioner in any manner, therefore, such a report is bad in law and liable to be quashed.
(3.)The petition was entertained by this Court and while issuing notices to the respondents, vide order dated 07.11.2008 it was directed that no coercive steps be taken to recover the amount in question from the petitioner. By filing a return, the Lokayukt, respondent No.3, has denied the allegations made in the petition. It is contended that since a complaint was received by the Lokayukt with respect to such illegal acts of the petitioner, enquiry was conducted, opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner and after examining all the records, instructions of the State Government as also the circulars so issued from time to time, the Lokayukt came to the conclusion that petitioner has availed all such facilities in his capacity as Chairman of the Corporation, which otherwise were not available to him under the orders of the State Government. Since on account of availing such facilities, financial loss was caused to the Corporation, said amount was required to be deposited by the petitioner. Holding as such, a report was submitted before the State Government to take appropriate action against the petitioner. This being so, it is contended that no illegality whatsoever is committed by respondent No.3 in submitting the report or asking the State Government to comply with the suggestions made by the Lokayukt. In view of this, it is contended that the writ petition is wholly misconceived and deserves to be dismissed.